Horsepower Brands Lawsuit: Every Case Against the Parent Company, Explained

Horsepower Brands is a franchise holding company founded in 2020 by Josh Skolnick and Zachery Beutler, built around acquiring and scaling home service franchise concepts. Its portfolio includes Blingle (exterior lighting), iFoam (spray foam insulation), and Mighty Dog Roofing (residential and commercial roofing), among others. Since 2023, franchisees from multiple brands under the Horsepower umbrella have filed lawsuits or gone public with complaints that follow a similar pattern: inflated earnings projections, inadequate training, and franchise fees that outpaced the actual support delivered. This article walks through the Horsepower Brands lawsuit history brand by brand, using court filings and Franchise Times reporting as the source record.

For the full breakdown of the original case, see our Blingle lawsuit article. For the newer roofing-specific litigation, see our Mighty Dog Roofing lawsuit article.

The Company Behind the Brands

Horsepower Brands is headquartered at 95 N. Broad Street, Doylestown, Pennsylvania. The company’s stated strategy was to build a portfolio of roughly 25 home service brands and franchise them nationally at speed. Blingle and Mighty Dog Roofing were among its earliest acquisitions, with Mighty Dog beginning franchising in November 2020.

That growth-first strategy is exactly what plaintiffs across multiple brands have pointed to in their complaints. The core argument, repeated in filing after filing, is that Horsepower’s business model depends on constant new franchise sales to generate revenue rather than on the long-term financial health of the franchisees already operating in the system.

The Blingle Case: Where the Pattern Started

The first major public lawsuit against the company came from Blingle franchisees. On August 8, 2023, eight franchisee LLCs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against SVHB Marketing LLC, doing business as Horse Power Brands. The case, Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03485-MSG, alleged that Horsepower sold franchisees a “business in a box” using inflated earnings claims, then failed to deliver meaningful training or support.

The complaint stated that a Horsepower executive told prospective buyers they could expect $400,000 to $600,000 in first-year revenue, rising toward $1 million in year two. According to the lawsuit, none of the eight plaintiff franchisees ever had a profitable year.

The case was dismissed in March 2024 because the franchise agreements required mediation rather than litigation, a common clause in franchise contracts. The dismissal ended that specific docket but did not resolve the underlying dispute, and it did not clear Horsepower of the allegations, since the merits were never examined by a court.

The Pattern Repeats: iFoam and Mighty Dog Roofing

By early 2025, Franchise Times found that franchisees at two other Horsepower brands, iFoam and Mighty Dog Roofing, were describing nearly identical problems. Operators said they were told no prior industry experience was required, but the training they received left them unprepared for the actual work of running an insulation or roofing business. Corporate staff, according to franchisees, misrepresented how much capital would be needed to get a territory running, leading many to spend significantly more than they were told upfront.

One former iFoam franchisee who operated territories southeast of Houston told Franchise Times he made mistakes of his own, but none should have led to the personal bankruptcy he filed in October 2023.

On the Mighty Dog Roofing side, a franchisee told the publication that out of the brand’s 143 territories, 40 had already closed by early 2025, with another 25 described as “on the edge” of shutting down due to lack of profitability. Only 60 territories generated enough revenue in 2024 to stay open, according to that account.

Horsepower Brands’ Official Position

When Franchise Times asked the company directly about the recurring pattern of complaints across its brands, Horsepower Brands responded in writing rather than addressing any specific case. The company’s statement read: “Unfortunately, there appears to be an industry problem with prospective franchisees failing to take the time to carefully review and understand these legally mandated pre-sale disclosures, hence the copycat style claims and allegations.”

That response frames the dispute as a due diligence failure on the part of franchise buyers rather than a systemic issue with how Horsepower structures its franchise offerings or trains new operators. It is the company’s consistent public position across every brand where complaints have surfaced.

2026: Fraud Lawsuits Filed Directly Against MDR United

The dispute escalated in 2026 when Mighty Dog Roofing franchisees moved past public complaints and filed formal fraud lawsuits against the franchisor, MDR United, and its executives. Three separate suits were filed in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and New Jersey, together representing eleven franchisee plaintiffs. The complaints accuse MDR of running a “calculated fraudulent inducement scheme to sell franchises through deception,” and allege the company’s Franchise Disclosure Documents contained EBITDA margin figures that excluded real labor costs, making the business look far more profitable than it actually was.

Horsepower Brands has responded by filing its own lawsuits against certain franchisees, a development that signals the dispute between the company and parts of its franchise network is now playing out on multiple legal fronts simultaneously. Full detail on these filings is available in our dedicated Mighty Dog Roofing lawsuit article.

Franchisees Organize

In April 2025, dozens of Mighty Dog Roofing franchisees formed an association affiliated with the American Association of Franchisees & Dealers (AAFD), a national organization that helps franchisees negotiate collectively with franchisors. According to the AAFD’s own announcement, the group’s stated purpose is to “foster an economic relationship with [Horsepower Brands] that prioritizes the financial success and sustainability of the franchisees.” Collective organizing of this kind is relatively uncommon in franchising and typically signals that individual franchisees felt they had limited leverage negotiating with the parent company alone.

What Ties These Cases Together

Reading the Blingle, iFoam, and Mighty Dog Roofing disputes side by side, several recurring themes stand out:

Earnings projections that didn’t hold up. In each case, franchisees say they were given verbal or written revenue estimates during the sales process that bore little resemblance to what they actually earned once operating.

Low barrier to entry marketing. Multiple brands under Horsepower were pitched to buyers with no prior industry experience, on the promise that corporate training and support would fill the gap.

Training and support that franchisees describe as insufficient. Across brands, the consistent complaint is that once the franchise fee was paid, the level of hands-on help dropped off sharply.

Underestimated startup costs. Franchisees in multiple brands say they spent considerably more than what they were told to get their territory operational.

A defense strategy centered on the FDD. Horsepower’s public response consistently points back to the Franchise Disclosure Document, arguing that any gap between sales pitch and reality should have been caught by franchisees during their own legal review before signing.

Due Diligence Checklist for Any Horsepower Brands Franchise

If you are evaluating Blingle, Mighty Dog Roofing, iFoam, or another Horsepower Brands concept, treat the litigation history as one input among several, not the whole picture. Steps worth taking before committing capital:

• Request the current Franchise Disclosure Document and read Item 3 (litigation) and Item 20 (franchisee lists) in full.
• Call multiple former franchisees, not just the references the company provides.
• Cross-check any verbal earnings claims against Item 19 of the FDD, and be skeptical of any number that isn’t documented there.
• Get an independent read on total startup costs, including working capital, from a franchise attorney or accountant, not solely from the franchisor’s estimate.
• Understand your dispute resolution clause before signing, since it will determine where and how any future disagreement gets resolved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Horsepower Brands currently facing active lawsuits? Yes. As of 2026, Mighty Dog Roofing franchisees have active fraud lawsuits against franchisor MDR United filed in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and New Jersey. The original Blingle case was dismissed in 2024 in favor of mediation.

Who founded Horsepower Brands? Josh Skolnick and Zachery Beutler founded the company in 2020.

What brands does Horsepower Brands own? Its portfolio includes Blingle, Mighty Dog Roofing, and iFoam, among other home service franchise concepts.

Has any court found Horsepower Brands liable for fraud? No court has issued a ruling on the merits of the fraud allegations across these cases as of this writing. The Blingle case was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the Mighty Dog Roofing cases remain in active litigation.

Last updated on: 24th July 2026